A British paratrooper who ran through heavy fire to single-handedly lead the fight back against a Taliban attack has become the UK’s first living recipient of the Victoria Cross from the Afghanistan campaign.

L/Cpl Joshua Leakey has been awarded Britain’s highest award for bravery in the face of the enemy more than 70 years after a relative posthumously won the same medal.

Read the rest of the incredible story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11435769/Para-becomes-first-living-VC-recipient-of-Afghan-war.html

 

 

The Libyan ‘revolution’ followed a series of uprisings and protests across the Middle East and North Africa in what has become known as the ‘Arab spring’. Protests against Gaddafi and his regime occurred in Benghazi, in early 2011, and the consequences were very bloody compared to earlier examples. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, prior to the Libyan example, had been relatively peaceful and some progress was made post-revolution. Gaddafi’s response was incredibly heavy handed and the western sphere saw unarmed protesters being fired upon. Certain writers, like Alan Kuperman, have contested whether these protesters were unarmed or not. For the international community events like this pose difficult questions to answer, such as: is it practical to use force to protect civilians from their own state? From a realist perspective it is a dangerous idea to intervene and disrupt national order, but the prevailing liberalist approach has been that good can come from the use of force in such situations.

The UN resolution 1973 was passed March 17 2011, with 10 members voting for and 5 abstaining – including Russia and China – with none against. The resolution created a no-fly zone over Libya and stated that all means necessary, short of a ground invasion, should be taken to protect Libyan citizens. NATO soon agreed to take control of enforcing the no-fly zone and to mount the air strikes upon Libya. The air strikes focused upon taking out the Libyan air defence system and then shifted the focus to the men on the ground. The strikes targeted Gaddafi’s advantage in armoured vehicles and tanks, which the rebels could not match. Such targets were easily destroyed when they moved, particularly in open desert, not posing the difficulties that urbanised areas do – which NATO struggled to combat in Kosovo. The intervention itself was much more successful than earlier examples and it formally ended on 31October 2011.

‘The resolution did not provide an explicit mandate to provide direct military aid to the rebels, which would probably have provoked a veto from Russia or China’.[1] This is one of the major issues of the Libyan intervention, the air strikes may have depleted Gaddafi’s advantage in armour and artillery, but only with the military aid provided by NATO states could the rebels have gained the upper hand. It was clear that very early on the mission aim had shifted from that of humanitarian intervention and protecting Libyan citizens, to that of overthrowing Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. It was naïve of the west to believe that they could simply leave so soon after and stability would be restored.

Post war Libya is far from stable and there is certainly a case to argue that the situation is more volatile and harmful to the people of Libya than it was under Gaddafi. In the wake of victory for the rebels there were scores of reprisal killings against loyalist Gaddafi supporters and thousands of Libyan were expelled. Racial violence against black citizens soared in areas such as Tawergha and previously suppressed Islamist groups emerged after the revolution. The post-war chaos spilt into Mali, Syria and encouraged Islamist militants beyond these countries.

It is easy for the Western politicians and the media to portray the intervention in Libya as a ‘humanitarian success’ for averting further bloodbaths and assisting the fall of a dictatorial leader. It provides evidence to fulfil NATO’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept, which has been at the forefront of foreign policy agendas in recent times. The example of Libya has presented problems that can arise from humanitarian intervention. The west have, arguably, exacerbated the issues in the region and strengthened the cause of Militant groups – particularly after the flow of Libyan arms out of the country. It has also shown the limitation of air strikes as a form of humanitarian intervention alone. Nobody wanted troops on the ground but there is a question of whether peacekeeping troops should have been allocated to the region to ease the transition.

The dangerous precedent that I believe has been set with the Libyan example regards to Russia and future Russian actions. The UN sanction 1973 was majorly escalated, through the role of NATO, to something that would have almost certainly been vetoed by Russia otherwise. Russia has always been suspicious of NATO, particularly with an American lead, and its encroachment upon Russia. The ties between Gaddafi and Russia may have been small compared to other affiliations, but the Russians would not have supported his downfall. I believe that Libya may act as a precedent for Russia to veto any similar interventions and could possibly have influenced Russian actions in Eastern Ukraine.

 

James Duncan

 

Bibliography:

Barrie, Douglas, Libya’s Lessons: the air campaign, Survival 54, 30 November 2012

Kuperman, Alan, A model humanitarian intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya campaign, International security 38, 2013



[1] Libya’s Lessons: the air campaign, Douglas Barrie

 Over 70 years since Operation Chastise, aka the Dam busters raid, was instigated during World War II and we see the two remaining airworthy Lancaster bombers fly over Derwent Dam.

The Dam, set along Derwent reservoir in Derbyshire, was where the RAF’s 617 squadron practiced and simulated their planned attacks on the Ruhr region of Germany. The operation required practice due to the new and advanced technology that would be used during the attacks – notably the ‘bouncing bomb’. Sir Barnes Wallis designed the bomb and it was designed to bounce across water in a measured approach towards the target, avoiding any obstacles along the way. The Dam busters raid was the first time these bombs were used and they were intended to reach the dams and explode underwater.

Bombing missions were clearly dangerous under normal circumstances, as the pilots were required to fly over enemy territory and risk being shot down. But the use of the bouncing bomb required the pilots to fly incredibly low – 100ft or lower at some points. This not only intensified the danger but also made the drop even more difficult. Those planes that made it towards the target then had to precisely release their bombs.

The raids took place on the 16th-17th May 1943 and were incredibly successful.  Two dams were breached – the Möhne and Edersee dams – and a third (the Sorpe) damaged. The floods that followed the bombings affected factories and infrastructure, destroying mines and two hydroelectric power stations. These raids successfully combined science, skill and determination to slow German production and negatively affect their war effort. Rapid German repairs did however ease the damage caused by the raids.

The Dam busters raid stretched the men of the 16th squadron to their limits. They were held together and led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC DSO DFC. He was a highly courageous leader, leading by example, and had flown over 100 operations during the war. He was dedicated to the cause, a skilled pilot and most importantly was respected by his men. The raids on the Dams were famously successful and it was for his role and leadership within bomber command that Gibson was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), Distinguished Service Order (DSO) and the Victoria Cross (VC). He sadly died on a late mission in the war.

The last flight of the Lancaster’s was a once in a lifetime sight and a tribute to those who died, not only during the dam busters raid but also those from bomber command who never saw the end of the war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29295272

 

 

Many people have a keen interest in the history of war, and especially this year, with the centenary of the First World War. Old war medals are often treasured family heirlooms, but plenty of people don’t know what they mean or the exciting details they could reveal about their ancestors. In this blog, we’re going to talk about some of the most common medals awarded to British soldiers throughout the years and what they actually mean.

The Victoria Cross

The Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration for valour in the face of the enemy it is possible to receive for members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces, and some former British Empire territories. Created in 1856 by Queen Victoria to honour gallantry in the Crimean War, the medal has been awarded to 1,354 individuals as of 2014. Instances of the medal being awarded have become much more rare, with only 10 medals being awarded since World War 2.

The Military Medal

The Military Medal is a now defunct military decoration that was awarded to servicemen in the British Army and Commonwealth countries, below commissioned rank, for bravery in land based battles. Established in 1916, it was the military equivalent of the Military Cross, which was awarded to commissioned officers and some warrant officers. Recipients of this decoration are entitled to use the post-nominal letters “MM”.

The George Cross

The George Cross is a decoration for gallantry and valour that is primarily awarded to civilians. It was created in 1940 by King George VI and takes precedence over all other orders, medals and decorations, apart from the Victoria Cross, which is of equal distinction.

If you’d like to talk to us about any of our replica medals, please send us an email through our contact page.

Copyright © 2014 Replica Medals. All rights reserved.
×
I will be away from the office 28/3/15 - 14/4/15, please bear this in mind when purchasing.
×